4 ms·

No, it's because they are lazy, not because of political beliefs. The product is just a cash grab. Put it this way: the mindset of a company like google in the

by kiba 3y ago

No, it's because they are lazy, not because of political beliefs. The product is just a cash grab. Put it this way: the mindset of a company like google in their approach to moderation is to automate as much of it as possible. They hate using human labor to do manual daily tasks. So they don't want to test and rate the quality output of Gemini over time.

tyingq 3y ago
This seems believable to me. Same way they fought spam in the search results. They didn't care about false positives, just whatever algorithm made for less spam, regardless of the end quality. Overweight big companies in the results and toss out good stuff? Sure. It's lazy, but the pure spam was mostly tamped down.
nonethewiser 3y ago
Clearly racial biases are embedded in the model. That wasnt simply the fastest way to build the model. They may have been too fast in releasing, but that’s not the actual cause.
GeekyBear 3y ago
> No, it's because they are lazy, not because of political beliefs. You don't get a system that will happily output text summaries of the achievements of any ethnic group except Caucasians without political beliefs being a factor. Either allow the query for all ethnicities, or none. Don't give a straight answer unless the query is for Caucasians, whereupon you lecture the user on how wrong they are for even asking that question.
khaki54 3y ago
It's probably that too, but if you look a little deeper you will see they put their thumb on the scale in all of their products. Google News media bias representation, manually curated search suggestions, even Google images has very strange results if you look up anything where race or intersectionalism can be injected.
safety1st 3y ago
Close... it's because they're a monopoly. They're not really lazy, plenty of people at Google work hard, but monopolies over time lose their ability to innovate or to compete on quality. They are only able to focus and organize around one thing: protecting the cash cow. So with Google that's the search advertising business and as a calcifying monopoly they will struggle to do anything else. They know that AI's potentially a threat but in an abstract, marketing-mutating sort of way their ad sales juggernaut can't understand. So they will throw a lot of money at AI, execs will make announcements stuffed with words like Bold and Transformation, and then they'll get sub-par results. This time around they ended up chasing random internal DEI goals or something instead of building a good product, and who knows what flub it will be next time. The direct comparison is Microsoft's inability to win at mobile, no matter how much cash they burned. Similarly mobile was kind of this existential threat at the perimeter of the cash cow, which was enterprise Windows. So they threw gobs of money at it, but because they had become dysfunctional outside of directly preserving the cash cow, they couldn't make stuff stick. Your Pocket PC (literally they called it a PC!) is a clunker but hey it can connect to an Exchange server! Now let's buy Nokia and run it into the ground!
- FirmwareBurner 3y ago
  >They are only able to focus and organize around one thing: protecting the cash cow. So with Google that's the search advertising business and as a calcifying monopoly they will struggle to do anything else. Google is now in it's own "Steve Balmer Era", where Windows and Office were the major cash cows and the company was throwing money without focus on projects failing left and right not caring since the main products were bringing in all the guacamole.

by kiba 3y ago

tyingq 3y ago

This seems believable to me. Same way they fought spam in the search results. They didn't care about false positives, just whatever algorithm made for less spam, regardless of the end quality. Overweight big companies in the results and toss out good stuff? Sure. It's lazy, but the pure spam was mostly tamped down.

nonethewiser 3y ago

Clearly racial biases are embedded in the model. That wasnt simply the fastest way to build the model. They may have been too fast in releasing, but that’s not the actual cause.

GeekyBear 3y ago

> No, it's because they are lazy, not because of political beliefs. You don't get a system that will happily output text summaries of the achievements of any ethnic group except Caucasians without political beliefs being a factor. Either allow the query for all ethnicities, or none. Don't give a straight answer unless the query is for Caucasians, whereupon you lecture the user on how wrong they are for even asking that question.

khaki54 3y ago

It's probably that too, but if you look a little deeper you will see they put their thumb on the scale in all of their products. Google News media bias representation, manually curated search suggestions, even Google images has very strange results if you look up anything where race or intersectionalism can be injected.

safety1st 3y ago

Close... it's because they're a monopoly. They're not really lazy, plenty of people at Google work hard, but monopolies over time lose their ability to innovate or to compete on quality. They are only able to focus and organize around one thing: protecting the cash cow. So with Google that's the search advertising business and as a calcifying monopoly they will struggle to do anything else. They know that AI's potentially a threat but in an abstract, marketing-mutating sort of way their ad sales juggernaut can't understand. So they will throw a lot of money at AI, execs will make announcements stuffed with words like Bold and Transformation, and then they'll get sub-par results. This time around they ended up chasing random internal DEI goals or something instead of building a good product, and who knows what flub it will be next time. The direct comparison is Microsoft's inability to win at mobile, no matter how much cash they burned. Similarly mobile was kind of this existential threat at the perimeter of the cash cow, which was enterprise Windows. So they threw gobs of money at it, but because they had become dysfunctional outside of directly preserving the cash cow, they couldn't make stuff stick. Your Pocket PC (literally they called it a PC!) is a clunker but hey it can connect to an Exchange server! Now let's buy Nokia and run it into the ground!

FirmwareBurner 3y ago
>They are only able to focus and organize around one thing: protecting the cash cow. So with Google that's the search advertising business and as a calcifying monopoly they will struggle to do anything else. Google is now in it's own "Steve Balmer Era", where Windows and Office were the major cash cows and the company was throwing money without focus on projects failing left and right not caring since the main products were bringing in all the guacamole.